Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 2

So how was the week? Well, I think as they tend to do, it disappeared in a flash and I I guess we have to take that as a as a good sign. I know some people might think differently, but yeah, I think it's been great. I mean, for certainly for UK column, you know, I, I think at the end of the last episode of this, I was talking about, you know, looking forward to this week and the stuff that we might

talk about. And I think for for us the, yeah, I mean the news cycle in a way is, is as bizarre as always. But I think the format that we have and you know, the ability to talk about it in extra greater length is fantastic. It, I think personally and professionally, it helps to be able to talk afterwards in a, in a, a less formal, less time constrained capacity. I think that does actually make

a difference. I think the, I think it's, it's easy to get so caught up in something you're reporting on that by the time you, you do it, it's, it's, it's in a sort of different part of your brain. And so, so to have that slightly slower time period afterwards is great. And I think with, you know, that fits well. Within you know your your new show.

And again, adding a different dimension of what's required of brain capacity to to follow what people are saying and introducing completely new topics. I think it's it's fantastic. So yeah, for me, been a very good week. I'm just, I'm just continuing to be staggered about how much we aren't able to put in the news because there's so much going on at the moment that there just isn't time. And it is incredible.

I mean, we are, we are well on the way to, I mean, I think have we announced what we're doing with the news program? But anyway, we're well, I might as well just mention that we're on their way to, to going back to five days a week. We haven't done this for many, many years. But because, you know, there's no other way to, to cover the, the range of topics that we need to cover. And you know, we're, we're regularly getting emails.

Why didn't you talk about this? Why didn't you talk about that? It's, it's, it's impossible with the, with the time constraints that we have. So. So we do. We need to make more time for ourselves. But Charles, you said a moment ago that the news cycle seems so bizarre. Yes, a quick thought that I had the other day. Is it actually bizarre or are we just more aware of what's going on? Or has it, has it genuinely become more bizarre? I'm I'm not sure. I, I can answer that if you want.

It's genuinely become more bizarre, right? There's a number, there's a number of reasons for this. Part of it is real and part of it is fake. It has become more bizarre because it's absolutely clear that on the establishment side, the people that are supposed to know what they're doing, they're supposed to be able to run countries, they're supposed to be able to run international relationship relations and so on.

They are off their heads. And so they're behaving in a particularly paranoid in many ways, but but just aggressive and and quite unpleasant ways to each other, to the, to the general population and so on, because they're off their heads that feeds through to everybody else. But as well as that, there is no doubt that we are in a massive

information war at the moment. And a big component of that is the deliberate pollution of the information space with rubbish and, and just any kind of rubbish to, to with a view to, I mean, they, they, they used, they start using, they started using the term post truth world a number of years ago. But the aim of the game here is because the term, the term post truth world came about around the same time that they started using the word trust in a particular way.

And the aim of the game here is to so pollute the information space. Their, their intention, whether they're successful in this or not, we can talk about, but their intention is to try to push people to to one location for trustworthy information. And the Internet and social media is not it, right? So, so the aim is to so discredit everything that's on social media that really you have to go to the BBC or the Guardian for your information.

And this is happening through the increased use of AI and, and algorithms to generate this content and to to, you know, at a pace that that nobody else can compete with. And it's also through psychological, psychological operations, actors like 77 Brigade and other various groupings of this type that are that are out there just pushing out the biggest pile of dung onto the Internet that they can possibly do. Yeah, well, I'm certainly not going to disagree with any of that.

I think the I think what's, well, what one of the changes not it's not a new one, but I think that the the effect is, is felt on a continuing basis and and will be. So is that the because everybody has been drawn in exactly like Mike says, this extraordinary space, whether it's, you know, the Internet or social media, however exactly you term it. But the point is that the the waiting of content across that medium is is not like it was before.

The, the, the ability of somebody to have something bizarre or stupid or wrong or questionable, whatever to, to, for that to be magnified or multiplied in a way that never would have happened previously is quite commonplace now. And and I think what has happened.

Ever since the well, I mean, I suppose they felt that it was inevitable and they had to but but but when the the mainstream publications started to first of all quote people from social media and then started to use it themselves, that that was I think the beginning of the end because for several reasons, I

mean, one. Was that they were forgetting or appeared to wilfully forget that Twitter, let's say was a you know, platform that belonged to somebody else It wasn't it wasn't this sort of transparent space with with no prejudice and and I think they they. Right from the start, they absolutely gave a wrongful impression of what these

platforms were. And you know, look, look where we are now with the censorship regime, with the powers in the UK that Ofcom has to prevail upon these platforms to Chuck people like UK, call them off their, you know, off their space. I mean it, it's so so where we've got to with it is is perfectly extraordinary. But also then they started putting out their messaging on it. And then, and then, lo and behold. The, the government follow suit.

And I mean the whole thing is it's sort of, it's the gutter really. And a lot of these people and organisations really should not belong there. And and in fact. Just to exempt for that, I was just bringing up an image I might report on this next week. I saw a tweet yesterday I think it was. I mean the the sensationalism. It is just childish and

extraordinary. But this is from the justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmoud. And she, there's a sort of graphic, you know, everything's about pictures these days. There's a sort of picture of a, a graph that's quite clearly just been drawn on the back, back of a fag packet. But it, it says at the top, we're running out of prison places. And then at the bottom, this is from the government. It says without action there

will be a total breakdown. And total breakdown is sort of highlighted in, in a block, a total breakdown of law and order. And, and this is, this is from the government. This is not some sort of, you know, opposition electioneering poster. They are putting this stuff out and, and it's, it's, it's just crazy. It's crazy talk. What really, what on earth do they mean by that? They're sort of They are in control, but they aren't at the

same time, and no one else can. Save you or or or quite what I mean, you know, to to divine some kind of message from this is almost impossible. And I think this is part of part of it. People are so incredibly confused exactly like Mike says on on both sides. I mean the people that are putting messages out don't even understand really what it is they're saying. But I think a part of that is because of the fact as I described and that people have moved into spaces they never

should have done. They haven't really considered that. And the other thing I think is that. The this relentless sense of the necessity for immediacy, it just drives a an agenda of of utter pointlessness. You know, these particularly from the government, they have to, they have these Twitter accounts. So therefore they've got to put stuff out. And I mean you just, you know, you. Look at the things that get put on there. I mean, why are they there?

They just, they, they do it because that's how the system works. If you don't put content on there, people don't follow you, people don't share your stuff. Whatever, I mean, why does why does the Home Office need followers, for example? I mean, you know, it's the Home Office. It's not, it's not just going to not exist if people don't look at its Twitter. Page, I mean in a way, sadly, but yeah, it's it's, it is very,

very strange. One of you mentioned post truth and something that I was thinking about recently is exactly that. It's always the other person, though, who doesn't know the truth. How do you discern what is true and what isn't true? Well, the, the, the first thing is you've, you've, you've got to, I mean, I'm not accusing anybody here, but we have to stop being lazy. We have to stop.

You know that there is a, there's a very much an approach that many, if not most people take that if somebody who they view as being a trusted voice says something that therefore it's true. And that's not necessarily the case. That applies to, to me. I, I do the last thing or anybody, the last thing I want is for anybody to take anything I say as being gospel or the truth. That's not, that's not the point. I'm, I'm putting out information

which I believe to be correct. Otherwise, I wouldn't put it out. But that doesn't make me above criticism or or, and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm a credible source that should just be, without criticism, accepted. Everything needs to be checked, and it needs to be checked with primary sources, not with, not with. You know, I don't care what platform you, you, you trust. And inverted commas, that is a

secondary source. So, so I mean, just to give an example, many occasions I'll see something on the BBC or in mainstream media which talks about a report said. And often, and of course, they never link to the report. And it takes a real, it actually takes a lot of effort to get to the source. And when you get to the source, you find the source didn't say that at all. They've spun the story in some way.

And so, so the, the key thing is is to, to, you know, drop the laziness and, and actually put the effort into, into trying to work out for yourself what the, what the truth is.

And that means going to as close to the source of the information as you possibly can get even, you know, and, and then you can start to, to analyse and, and make a decision for yourself about what, what the truth is. I mean, assuming there is an objective truth, and I believe there is an objective truth because ultimately, you know, something is, something has happened and, and you know, something is correct.

The, the, the trick is to, to try to identify what that correct thing is. And the only way to do that is to put the effort in. And most people don't do that. Most people simply share the sensationalist material that they find on social media without any discernment and, or, or, or actually working out whether it should be shared or

not. And that, that in fact, every time somebody does that, anytime somebody looks at that post on social media uncritically and just shares it, they are doing the other side's job because they're, they're, they because the other side, they, they, the establishment wants rubbish shared on the Internet because that gives them the justification for everything else that they do in terms of

the censorship regime. And so, you know, it is, it is, in my opinion, beholding on us all to, to, to actually, not just with, you know, as a, as a knee jerk reaction, share the, the, the latest sensationalist post. You've got to put the effort in, work out. Is it correct? And if it's correct, absolutely share it, share it as hard as you can, but but only once you're happy that that it's for certain correct.

Yeah. I mean, well, I think like Mike's saying, I mean, the, the the issue is, well, insofar as truth is concerned, is there, is there 1 objective truth? And, and, and without wanting to sort of dodge or complicate the

issue, it does depend. It depends on, you know, if you're the example you use, you know where say the BBC will cite refer to a report which also, by the way, one should add is usually a report that's come out well over six months ago and hasn't been addressed at all, but probably will have been dealt with by UK column. But yeah, it's, it's something like that. You can, you can go to the report and you can see for sure that what has been reported by the third party is, is just not correct.

So, so there that you can find an objective truth. I think in a lot of other situations it's, it's a little bit more nebulous than that perhaps. And and and that that does put us into slightly difficult. Waters but but then but then it becomes a matter of belief, and your beliefs are underpinned by very thorough research and an appraisal of all the factors that you can put before yourself

and. So it it yeah, I mean, this is a we're in a sort of dodgy area because it does sound a little bit like post truth and this that and the other. But but but then the absolutes are are really rare and I think we. We do. I mean, going back to what you were saying, talking about facts in the COVID era, I mean, how, how utterly laughable that it should be the scientific community that would declare

there to be absolute. I mean, it's as though the the whole meaning of science has been completely forgotten. I mean no great coincidence of that also was a time of enormous investment, let's say in science. But but, but that's slightly by the by, I mean again, etymologically and from a an argument point of view, the way we use the word fact now is, is incorrect. I mean a fact, a fact is not was never an absolute truth.

A fact was. I mean the, the, the derivation of the word is to make something. So it's to make a position, it's to make a statement. It's not incontrovertible and yet that's how they're used now. So when we talk about scientists putting out facts or the government's putting out facts, well, actually what they're meaning is it's something they have made. It's a position they have made, which is absolutely open to

challenge. But of course we sit there and and think, oh, right, Well, in which case that that must be that. I mean, maybe we don't. I hope we don't, but but, but people do. But I think that's a really important distinction to make. But but yeah, I mean on on the on the belief side of it, that will at times come down to a question of perspective. And just to to take this down to, you know, in, in, in, in a sense, relate it back to your anecdote about your grandmother.

As people might know, some of my professional experience was spent policing. And one of the things I always found fascinating was to was to investigate something where you had, you were lucky enough to have several different sources of evidence in that if it were an incident that had taken place, a physical incident that had involved other people.

And you could take witness statements from people that did have a particular point of view, as in a literal point of view, they were nearby what what happened. And maybe all of that was also filmed on CCTV or maybe CCTV from two different places. What was completely remarkable.

And in a way you can't, you can't quite believe it till you do see it. But you might get 3 witness statements that would appear to be talking about almost totally separate incidents and then CCTV footage that would show something else again. So my point is that depending on where you're standing, you will in fact be a different version of an event. OK, I know I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm sort of superimposing A literal analogy on on to this.

But but it the point is that there is nuance, there is, there is complexity to all of this. For those instances that are outside of the well, this report says that and you can go to the report and it quite clearly doesn't actually say that, but but, but that's, you know, unfortunately that is not the way that everything works. And and so ultimately. We do have to. It's a sort of best effort. And, and it has to be a belief to be able to to go that step further and say that your belief.

Is the truth. I would say in in a lot of instances is is a step too far, but that you know that that works both ways and people have to acknowledge that. Let's use a real world example of what you're talking about. The South African president went to the White House and met with Donald Trump and the whole thing to some degree was was theatrical. What is true about what was said there? So you've got to, you've got to

make a judgement. First of all, you've got to see the comments from Donald Trump in context. But before we even get to that point, you've got to ask, first of all, what is the definition of genocide? And So what definition are you going to use for the use of the term? And now in this case, it's extremely difficult because South Africa does not publish statistics on ethnicity of people that are murder victims. So the last statistics I saw were for the last three months

of last year. And there may be more recent months with those those, let's just take those as an example because that's what I have in the head. And there was something in the region of 6000 murders in, in South Africa in the last three months of last year. And the, the official numbers say that one of those was a white farmer, that there were several others that were farm workers or people who were living on the farms.

Now, of course, somebody that is on the pro, I don't mean pro in the sense that they supported, but they believe in the idea of a white genocide in South Africa will say, oh, well, those are official statistics. So you can't believe those anyway. Well, that's true, but they're the only statistics that we have at this point. The But on the other hand, the the other statistic that I thought was interesting that Donald Trump made this offer.

And so far, what have there been about 40 or 50 people have taken it up. So that does not imply a, a white genocide because there is not a, a, a mass exodus. Now, what I think we can say is that since the ANC has, has come to power, they have certainly allowed, for whatever reason, they have allowed significant lawlessness. And and you know that that figure of 6000 murders in three months is, is, you know, in incredible.

And I, I don't know how any country can stand for that, But my understanding of it is that, that without doubt there, there is unfairness in the, in the legal system in the sense that, that whenever these, because what we're looking at here is criminality, it's gangs that are going right. And of course, if they view a white farmer or white farms as being relatively affluent, then of course they're going to be targets of criminality. But the criminality is not

genocide. So that's the, that's, that's, that's a point to make. So, but the, the point is, if, if, if these criminal gangs are running around the countryside murdering each other and, and, and as a, as a, a side effect of, of the, the, the theft that they're, which is really what's motivating them. People are being injured and

killed. And then they're the law enforcement is not, you know, doing anything about that, then it's clear that that is an unfair situation for, for the victims of that, of that criminality. But again, that's not genocide either. It's, it's a bad situation and it should be dealt with. And really Ram opposes should be doing something about it, but

clearly he isn't. But the, but then on top of that, you've got the question of whether or not there, there is, you know, intent from the government to, to, to state effectively take land without compensation or from, from anybody, whether it's white farmers or any, you know, and, and I don't know actually what the truth of that is. And maybe you can, can help with that.

But, but you know that, that I've seen a video clip of, of where I'm opposed to talking about this, but I don't know what the context of it is. And I don't know, you know, how accurate or truthful it is to, to perceive it this way.

So, so it's, it's very difficult to, to get to the bottom of exactly what's going on. And, and, and of course, people that are on the receiving end of, of criminality are going to be very vocal about it. But, but it it all for me, it all comes down to what's your definition of genocide? And then, sorry, I'll just just make one final point.

And then we've got us, as I say, see it in the context of other events and the fact that South Africa is itself making allegations of genocide against a certain other country. And the Trump is a supporter of that other country precisely. And therefore is he jumping on this particular bandwagon, which nobody has said anything about for the last goodness knows how many years. Suddenly it's become an issue. Why is it suddenly become an issue now?

And so you can sort of come to a conclusion about what's actually going on there without, you know, I think, I think that that conclusion is possible to come to without getting caught up in, in particular ideologies or narratives. In South Africa. You think, but there's another there's another important point there. What's going on in Gaza is state violence.

This is the state using state weaponry, state war capability to bomb the hell out of a part of the, of, of a country right in South Africa, Africa. It the violence, whatever it is, is not state violence. Or at least I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that the state is in any way directly involved in it. There's not certainly not using the military. They're not bombing farms with, with, you know, F30 fives. So it's not state violence.

And and that that is another significant difference here. That so and, and you're correct. And, and so I said this earlier this week that the definition of genocide is it's an infinite loop, because what it does is that it it captures you into a particular set of parameters and you can't get out of it. So you're no longer arguing about what's going on, you're arguing about what a word means. So you go around and around and around and around. And it's a distraction,

ultimately. What? Yeah, No, no, I just, I mean the, the minefield where statistics are concerned is, is, is boundless. You know, you think I'm not. I don't mean to compare this with what, what's just been said about Gaza, but but if you think and, and your, your question at the beginning was, you know, we started to talk about South Africa, you're in South Africa. So Oh well, you know, you must know because you're there. No, but it's a big country. Yeah, exactly.

And and I think that's what's so fascinating. And you think back to the, to what was happening, you know, and I can speak for, for the UK in 2020, if you had lived in Austria and you'd called your English or Welsh or Scots, Northern Irish friend and say, gosh, you know, what's, what's with this pandemic thing, you know, is it real? And obviously 95% of people answering that telephone call would have said, Oh yeah, gosh, it's absolutely real. You know, people dropping like flies.

I mean, look at these graphs, you know, look at, look at the, the statistics. It's, it's across the board, it's across the regions. And, and of course, that's not my belief at all. I don't think any of that happened. I, I think that it's perfectly possible to kill people by imposing conditions on them that mean their lives basically stop being lived as they would like and therefore they will die. I mean that that's, that's no

great surprise. You don't need, you don't need anyone to be ill or, or even, you know, you just, you just need the, the sort of the spectre of illness. But so, so the, the two things. And one is, is how statistics, I mean, we, we know this, it's, it's, it's obvious, but but how statistics are wielded and manipulated to whatever end.

But of course, the other thing is this idea of sort of ground truth that Oh well, you know, and again, you think of the BBC here's certain, say, reporting from Lahore. And usually if they're reporting from Lahore, it'll be about something that's happening in Delhi or, or something that, you know, I mean, it's just so the so the idea that somebody that is there a can actually see what's going on, but B has any better idea than anyone who isn't there.

And, and I think it's very. Easy to sort of just use that idea of proximity as, as being meaningful when, when it's still exactly like Mike says. I mean, there's still so much more scrutiny of the information that should be conducted. It doesn't matter really where anyone is just.

And then on the South African thing, I mean, I'm afraid for me, the, the, it's the Musk influence that that I think is impossible to ignore in that he, he is desperate to float the, the law with the black, black and white ownership thing. And the, the deal, the star link and Tesla deal that he's been trying to sort out with Ramaphosa. I'm sure that must have something to do with. The well, definitely, I think it's part of Agenda 2030. I think it's part of Agenda 2030.

It's to bring, it's to bring more mass surveillance into the agricultural sector. I mean, Catherine Fritz has spoken about this. It's a bit like going back to the, you know, the BBC says such and such a report says something in actual fact, whilst I mean, let's say, you know, climate change, the whole sort of, Oh well, 97% of climate change scientists say that, say, say this, that and the other.

So yes, it would be perfectly possible to read a report and come away with perhaps more than one conclusion, depending on your point of view before you started reading it. And I think that's the same thing. That's the Douglas Murray thing. It doesn't, it doesn't matter where you take Douglas Murray. He's not going to stop being a Zionist. And so it's that in a way that's

that's immaterial. However, there are absolutely, of course there is. I mean, I would say there, there is absolutely a value in going to the source, whether that be a a physical place or, or whatever. But but that but exactly like you say, that doesn't qualify you to have an opinion that cannot. Be challenged. Just as a matter of interest, I don't know if I told you I was at a dinner last year with, with Douglas Murray and a bunch of other people.

He, he came to South Africa. I was actually invited him. I'm not, not exactly friends with him. And there were maybe, I don't know, 60 people at the dinner. And, and he said that Israel must not stop bombing Gaza. And everybody took their glasses of wine and chinged and cheered and clapped. And I just watched this and I thought this is incredible. Yeah, yeah, that's it. Sorry. Forgive me. Am I not correct in thinking that you you impersonate his

voice fairly accurately? No, I can't impersonate his voice. I can't even. I'm British, What are you talking about? I thought you did quite a good Douglas Murray. I thought I heard you say it the other way. OK, fair enough. It wasn't something to something to work on for next week. Listen to my accent. I I can't. I can't even come anywhere close to your accent. Oh. That might be a good thing. Yeah, I mean, but that's it, that that is exactly it. And it, yeah, it's, it's, it's

perfectly astonishing. We we were talking in extra on Wednesday's news this week following a report that Sandy Adams had done about the Delphi technique and about manufacturing consent. And this is it. This is it. It is absolutely amazing. She showed a sort of cartoon of a bunch of people all verbally agreeing with something. And the the little thought bubble from everybody's heads was no, that I can't remember what the exact words were, but no, this sounds like a terrible

idea. You know, I don't think so. And yet everybody said yes. And it's it, it just constantly astonishes me. I mean, I know, I know it shouldn't because that sort of sounds as though it's, it's terrifically naive, especially after all this time. But at at any level really of society where these sorts of ideas get floated or pushed out, there has to be a start point for that. There has to be a, an initial meeting where somebody says so, you know, bombing civilians.

What do we think? And you know, why do people lack the integrity and the moral courage to just say straight away? No, we're not. We're not doing that because you've just hit the nail on the head as to why we're in this mess in the 1st place and why, why I get personally so frustrated with with anybody who says, but what can I do, right? What we need to do, what each of us needs to do is to start with ourselves.

We need to develop the moral courage and the moral backbone to stand up and say, no, this is not going to happen in my name or whatever. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about genocide in Gaza or, or a low traffic zone in a, in a local authority. It doesn't matter what the topic is. If you disagree with it, you've got to have the guts to stand up and say, even in the face of, you know, you being the only voice in, in a room of 100

people, it doesn't matter. We've got to, we've got to each of us has got to start right there because, because without that, you know, everybody else, just everybody just goes along and and, you know, I can't, I can't remember when the conversation was it this was it last week when you were talking about the suggestion that people will go to the camps without,

you know, yeah, to the gulags. This is this is, This is why it's important that we have to work on ourselves first before we even start looking at what's going on on the outside. It's what's inside that is, is the key. And, and that's why I'm saying in action from most people, you know, even people that are very strongly disagreeing with everything that's going on around them, they sit there and say, well, what can I do? I'm not going to write to MP.

I'm not going to, they won't even take, they won't take a single step because there's always an excuse for not taking that step. And and it's, it's got it. That's got to change. Everybody's got to be speaking out in some way. It doesn't matter what way it is or how people choose to express themselves. Find the most creative way to express yourself you possibly can, but you got to have the the fiber to do it. And that starts with us. Yeah, it does.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, I was, I was thinking, yes, sorry. Go on, Charles. No, no, no, no. That was it. No. Go on. Now I was going to say that this whole thing about finding truth is it's a forever war, isn't it? It's not something that will end anytime soon. It's not like we're going to wake up 1 morning and go right today. We know the truth. It has arrived and we can now see it. I mean, I think this is, this is part of the existential crisis

of humanity. It goes, I think, even way back to the Greeks, you know, the ancient Greeks and even further trying to figure out what was true about what was happening around them. But I see that as a crisis. That's not a crisis. That's that's that's what life's about. That's fun. That's working out what how how life works is true. But that is that's we should be looking at that as as being something that gives us enjoyment, right? OK, Right. Yes, that's a good point.

Yeah, sorry you I, I interrupted. No, no, no, no, no, but that. But I mean, what you're saying is, is, is actually correct. So it's not an existential crisis there. There are very few, I suppose, existential crises and they don't really have to do, but have anything to do with truth. They probably have to do with things like volcanoes and and the sun exploding and things like. That no, I think you're on to

something there. I think the existential crisis is the fact that people are actually not interested in in discovery. And I think that is the, the, the, the, the problem. They're not interested in engagement with, with life and any, they just what they want to go and get drunk at the weekend, whatever, because, because actually they just want to escape from what's going on around them. And and that's, that's, that's the existential crisis, in my opinion.

You know, like in the last few years, this idea for example of of of of being vaccinated has become cult like in its in its status for for the longest time in my life, I can never remember the stage when asking if somebody was vaccinated or unvaccinated elicited such an emotive response. I think I think this started this started well before that, Jeremy, you know, if, if, if we look at Brexit, for example, and there's, there's other things before that.

Again, this, this has been a, a process has been developing for a very long time and, and, and people have been, people have had division imposed upon them. But, but this comes back to this, this whole conversation about, I mean, this whole conversation explains why that has had because people have not been actually engaged properly with what's going on around them. They have then allowed themselves to be driven into one camp or the other.

There's the camp that wore masks, the camp that didn't wear masks, the camp that voted Brexit, the camp that didn't vote Brexit. There's the camp that protested the, the potential to go to a war in Iraq in 2003 and the camp that didn't. And, and that this division has been, and you know, I haven't seen it, a division that's each time that they do this, it gets harder and harder, a divide.

And actually the Israel Gaza thing has become probably one of the hardest divides that I've seen ever. So we have been being softened up. Yes, COVID was a very big one. And that one of the real softening exercises, no doubt about it, right up there at the top of the list. But it's been going on for decades. Somebody said to me, when October the 7th happened, somebody said to me, why are you supporting the Palestinians, Greta? Supporting the Palestinians, right.

And the implication was that because somebody else that I disagree with on another topic was supporting this topic, that I happen to support that therefore I'm wrong. Well, I'm sorry, that doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make me wrong that somebody who's who's who was taking the knee for George Floyd is wearing a Palestinian scarf around their neck. Doesn't mean that that Israel bombing Palestine is the is the thing that I need to be supporting. And, and this is the problem.

We are allowing ourselves to be driven into camps. You know, one of the things that I'm probably proudest of with respect to the UK column is that we'll get equal criticism for being left wing and right wing. Nobody knows what the hell we are. And this is, this is the point because I'm, I'm, I'm looking at things in terms of, you know, what I think is the right thing is that you know what I think the truth is. And as I said before, that doesn't mean that it's objectively true.

But certainly I'm doing my best to try to get as far as, you know, we all are trying to get to what is objectively true. But I'm not going to, I'm not going to make my judgement on what true is based on whether I consider myself to be conservative this week or whether I can consider myself to be a socialist next week. That's not how it works. You take each. You got to take each issue on

its merits. The, the main thing is that people, most people now would not know a principle if it ran up to them in the street, pulled their trousers down and punched them in the face. They just, they, they don't get it. And, and so how, how do we live in a world where for two years solid we were told that we were saving lives. We had to do everything we could to save lives. And then the most, the illegal Russian aggression started in February 2022.

We had to then quickly kill as many people as possible. And then when then when in October 2023, some Israelis were killed, which was reported as being a terrible tragedy, we then had to make sure that a lot of Palestinians were killed to, to make up for it. I mean, it's, it's, it's absolutely absurd. And it comes down to very, very straightforward principles. And if you follow principles, you just, you really don't go far wrong.

But but of course, people have utterly lost sight of that, which is why it is so easy to manipulate division, because people just totally forget. What, what, what it's about? And you do get and then and then you will get oh gosh, no. Well, I can't. I can't support that this week because Greta's already got there 1st and I don't. You know, I don't agree with her. Well, I mean, because I actually, funnily enough, that.

Was even on the news, there was that she was, she was in Tbilisi. She was, she was. Do you remember there was that rather awkward video of her dancing in the streets in Georgia. And I think I made a throwaway corner. I said I felt rather sorry for her because she did look a little bit pitiful. She was just sort of dancing, not terribly convincingly on the street in Georgia and and it was all a bit awkward. And, you know, at a very human level, of course I felt sorry for her.

I feel sorry for her for a whole host of reasons. She should not have been put in that terrible position of, of just a lifetime of absurd pressure that she frankly sort of had no part in, didn't really understand. Of course I feel sorry for her. But then, but then the next thing is there's, you know, there are sort of comments about, well, how can you sympathise with, with Greta or this, that and the other. And you know, OK, it's, it's,

it's the principle. It's, it's, it's not, I'm not saying no suddenly, oh, well, therefore I have to fall in line. And absolutely everything she's ever said. It's not how it works anyway. Should be very simple. Your point about principles and values is is for me foundational. So that's why I, I make a very clear cut argument and I think that people need to have something to believe in.

Now, this is going to sound a bit woo, but I, I def, I have come to realize that, for example, believing in nothing is a great way to be manipulated and, and, and, and influenced. So I don't care if you're a Muslim or if you're a Christian, but at least you have a set of values. I don't have to necessarily agree with your values, but at least you have a set of values on which to base your decision

making. I think, I think you've had something quite important there, because that is something that I've had sent in my direction. I don't know whether Charles said this in the last number of months or once or twice. Why did you talk about this in this way? Because you're beginning to sound like the BBC. What, what that, what that sentiment represents is the idea that if it's on the BBC, then it has to be, you have to take the opposite position. So the BBC can never be right

about anything. This is, this is very dangerous because of course it's not. Life is not black and white. And we've sort of touched on this already, but life is not black and white in this way. And you know, there is nuances, Shades of Grey and sometimes the BBC covers things, you know, the, the, the facts, as they say, speak for themselves. And the BBC has no choice but to to explain things as they are.

In some cases. If we simply allow ourselves to say that there is no truth ever in anything that comes out of a mainstream mouth, whether it be a politician or the BBC or whatever it happens to be, then we without question end up going down blind alleys and being taken in directions that that

are not productive. And in fact, bearing in mind the complexity of the information space at the moment, are I, I would argue in in many cases are there specifically to to draw people into blind alleys and directions which are unproductive. So. Can I give you what I believe is a? Is a good way to navigate the minefield of propaganda and information. Also, the beginning of this

discussion, how do you discern? I don't have the solution or any type of formula, but I do have a good rule of thumb which I picked up from Nassim Taleb, who I don't know if you know who he is, but he's written some some great books on risk analysis. He got the COVID thing very wrong and I'm well aware of that and he even blocked me on on Twitter at the time. But nonetheless, he's written a lot of very good stuff. And what he said in a nutshell is the following.

Consider those making the claims and see if they have skin in the game. How much do they have to lose by making that statement? If CNN makes a statement and it's clearly wrong, what happens to CNN? Well, pretty much nothing. They just say, oh, sorry, we got that wrong, or they didn't. They just don't do anything and they carry on. If somebody small like it's Auk column in comparison gets it wrong, there's a lot more to

lose. You have, you'll have you'll you'll start having subscribers going well, you know what, you guys are not trustworthy. We're going somewhere else. It's you have more skin in the game than, say, CNN or the BBC. Yeah, I mean, I, I would absolutely agree with that.

I would also just, you know, just going back to what you were saying about, you know, say, Oh, well, Donald Trump might say this, which which seems to be the case or, or seems to be something that you might agree with or whatever. And it's the same, it's the same sort of thing. It's and indeed, insofar as the BBC of course will put out content that we may agree with on a factual basis, I think what? You're talking about really is it it concerns motivation. You know, why is something being

said and to to what end? And I think particularly with any politician, you know to what, to what end would they be saying such and such a thing? Similarly with a. With a mainstream media organization that as you say faces no backlash for anything that it really says, why would it be putting particular information into the public domain? And by the same token, why would it be not putting certain pieces of information out there? Why would things not be talked about?

Actually, on that note, in so far as treating things on their own merits, on Wednesdays news, Mike played a clip from Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the opposition, leader of the Conservative Party at the moment. So she's in a position where, like leaders of the opposition tend to do, they they, they, they consist stay stuff without consequence because they know that they're miles away from a general election and they probably won't win that anyway.

And, and, you know, it doesn't really matter. It's just, it is sort of theatre upon theatre. And yet, in an interview with Trevor Phillips, she said that Israel is fighting a proxy. War on behalf of the UK, just as Ukraine is fighting a proxy war on behalf of Western Europe. She said that in a mainstream live television interview. And then silence. I mean, actually, I'm not. I haven't seen what happened after. I know what Trevor Phillips said to that, if anything.

Oh, no, he didn't. He didn't, he let it pass because I, I, I chopped the rest off. There was nothing of consequence in, in the in the next minute of, of comments. So yeah, yeah. So, so you know, she, she said that. I mean, it actually it was, it was during sort of quite an animated back and forth. So one feels that she wasn't completely in control when she said it and therefore.

It's, you know, taking it at face value, it doesn't look like it was on her list of talking points to get out during the interview. It's as though it did sort of come out by accident. And so therefore in in the skin the game thing, you think, well, actually, was she seeking to make political points or capital from it? Maybe not. Maybe. Maybe. It, it, it was, as far as she's concerned, sort of an objective belief. But it's, you know, it's significant.

And yet it it was, it was met like Mike says, met with silence. And and I don't think, we don't think it's been reported on elsewhere. So yes, I mean, this stuff, it does come out sometimes, sometimes perhaps there isn't necessarily an agenda in saying it didn't look in the way that she did say. It didn't look like she had a particular agenda in saying it, other than it was her belief. I remember back in 2020, I was trying to find information to counter what I was seeing in the

mainstream. And that's how I, you know, discovered UK column. And my anecdotal story is that I had more faith in waters being published on UK column about this, this quote UN quote, pandemic than what CNN and BBC were were publishing. And that's and that's because, as I said, the the small crew behind UK column have got more skin in the game. Yeah, yeah, we do. And and we and we, you know, the criticism comes directly to us

as well. You know, there, there aren't, there aren't 500 layers between US and the, and, and the public, because it's not often that, you know, if you want to criticize a specific reporter or presenter on the BBC, you don't get to, to do that directly. You got to go through Capita, who or whoever's running the, the BBC call center.

So, so the, you know, the, the, the criticism comes directly to us and, and you know, we don't get the opportunity to, to respond to every e-mail or every comment that comes in our direction. But you know, it's, it's by and large, it's all read and it's all considered.

So, you know, there were a couple of comments for me from yesterday's coverage of, of King or Wednesday's coverage of King Charles in Canada and people suggesting that the allegations of, of abuse in the church run schools for indigenous children were, were over egged and not not quite accurate. Well, I, I, OK, I've that, that that message has been received and be taken into account. I'm not sure.

I, I think there, I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest the abuse that I was talking about. But you know, that obviously will, will that, that that feedback will be considered and, and you know, if there's a correction needs to be made, it'll be made. But you know, that's still a bit of work to be done there. The point is that the feedback comes directly to us.

And so it's not just the fact that there's financial skin in the game, which there is in terms of memberships and support that way, but also the the direct contact that we have from from our viewership. Well, let's come in for landing. Final thoughts. After you, Charles. I think the ladies theme are very kind. Yeah, OK. Yes, I think, I think as a as a theme goes. Well, not a theme, you know,

like a sort of a talking point. I do think principles, you know, you know the really elemental aspect of of dealing things. On their own merits. So, so exactly like we've been talking about, you know, why, why would you make a rod for your own back and disagree with an organization or a person based on who they are? I mean that that that sounds like an extraordinary prejudice to carry around. To, I would say no effect or, or, or any a negative effect.

So, so taking everything on its own merits is a much more straightforward way to approach things. And I think in, in the pursuit of an objective truth, if such thing exists, that's, that's the way to go about it. And again, in terms of forming your own points of view, which are totally critical to use to follow principles and, and

values. I mean, again, this is really interesting because something I've been pursuing for the last few weeks started with a story that the Ministry of Defence tried to get a grip of, which was a raw Marine who put out a survey about the policy for diversity in the raw Marines and how it would affect the combat effectiveness and, and this sort of thing. I mean, I, I would say, you know, totally legitimate concern with the way in which things.

Have been going anyway. The Ministry of Defence took the survey offline and then said that this was an issue of values and standards and all, all regiments, units in in the armed forces have their own set of values and standards. And the idea was that there was conflict between the Royal Marines values and standards and this action. But but that really wasn't the case.

You know, they're there, they're written down in black and white and nothing this chap had done was in any way a challenge to the values and standards of the raw Marines. In actual fact it was, it was absolutely based on him wanting to uphold the in fact, for the commandos, it's slightly different. They have they have the commando ethos, I think it is. And, and something else. I apologise to all the bootnacs who will be shouting at the screen saying that I've got that wrong.

But, but, but whatever it is, the, the ROM needs to have something slightly different written down. It's, it's more simple than 4/4 key parts. But, but this, you know, this was just spin by the Ministry of Defence and that's where they get in trouble. I mean, the thing that's the, the, you know, the flip side to this, if, if you, if you are, if you're, if you're not principled and you don't treat things on their own merits, you create a

world of trouble for yourself. And this is where we, you know, we go back to the beginning with the news cycle being so crazy and people just being nut cases, sending out things that just don't make any sense. And that, and I think this explains in large part, if one's to assume that anyone is, is attempting sincerity in the 1st place. This is why people get it wrong, because they don't stick to the very, very fundamental and foundational point and, and

everybody veers off course. And that works both ways. Not just those that are putting out the information, but those that are receiving it as well. Which is why we get idiots like Douglas Murray standing up saying let's bomb Israel and everyone goes Oh yeah go on then, daft. Yeah, I would. I would just say that, you know, we were talking about resistance starting with us internally and

sorting ourselves out. I think something that we have a skill that we have lost, if we ever had in the 1st place, is, is dialogue and the ability to have a conversation with someone without without running into entrenched positions and without basically just trying to shut them down. We've got to be able to find a way to talk to each other even when we are in completely opposing views. We're being driven into extreme positions by what I believe is a

psychological information war. And we, we've got to start. We've got to start recognizing that that is being done to us. And that if we allow ourselves to be driven to the extremes, which we increasingly are, then that that is in fact doing the job of the of the people that are trying to push us in those directions. So where we are behaving like sheep, even the people who think they're wide awake are behaving

like sheep in their own way. We've got to recognize that and and just stop and think a little bit about about what's happening around us. Quick plug ukcolumn.org Please support us by going to going to the support page we are in. Join us. Join us as a member that, that that is the best way. Yeah, yeah. Get over that hurdle, you know, because. Lots of skin in the game. Yeah, UK column.

Yeah. And I think, sorry, I think, I think I, I think I may have just quoted it misquoted Douglas Murray. I think I said, he said bomb Israel. Of course, I didn't mean that at all. You would never have said that. So my my apologies to Doug. Yeah. All right, on that note, gentlemen, Charles Mannett, Mike Robertson, thank you for joining me in the weekly Banter Trenches. Thank you very much.